Innovation, conservatism and tradition

שו”ת › Category: Halacha › Innovation, conservatism and tradition

asked 3 years ago

Hello Rabbi, first of all, thank you for the series, it was very interesting (I listened to it during the lessons on Friday). Two questions:
A. I was unable to understand where Chazal’s authority comes from to add laws that are not based on the sermons of the verses. I would appreciate it if you could expand on this. on. Regarding the intuition of previous generations, where does this intuition stop? Is it only within the limits of the sermon? And why not say that the first ones also had better intuition than ours, and therefore it is forbidden to dispute their words because of this?
By the way, regarding the book that puts the sign in the direction of not circling the head, etc. If I’m not mistaken, the source for this is somewhere in the words of the Ari. I assume that the intention is not that one really has to fulfill a mitzvah like taking a lulav, but rather that it is a way of living in the consciousness of doing God’s will (my hypothesis).

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 3 years ago

A. Are you talking about the laws of the rabbis? The authority is from the Torah (according to Maimonides). They really cannot add laws from the Torah. They can add laws from the Torah, but that is not really from the Torah. B. Why do you say this? Regarding the qualities of the sermon, the early ones did not have intuition, as they themselves say. You may mean the Tan’im (and a little bit of the Amoraim). The basis for this is probably proximity to the source (Mount Sinai). Even if someone has a better intuition, that does not mean that it is forbidden to disagree with it. What is the connection between this and that? It may mean that it is not worth disagreeing with it (substantive, not formal, authority). And this also ignores the value of autonomy. Have you heard the whole series? It doesn’t become clear in one wash of dishes on Friday. If not, it’s worth continuing.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

יבול replied 3 years ago

A. I mean the laws of the rabbis, which are not part of a court ruling, but rather as an innovation of a private amora (if there are any).

B. I will correct the question. One can disagree in any case, but is this a consideration in your opinion when you discuss the words of the Rishonim. That is, in cases where they prohibited based on explanation and not on evidence, it can be said that they had an intuition to prohibit and it is stronger than ours.

I listened to the entire series, over several Fridays…

PS What do you think about teaching a Zoom lesson on Shaare Yosher? Something serious, where you need to study sections beforehand, etc.…

Thank you very much

מיכי Staff replied 3 years ago

A. Rabbinical laws are binding only if they were established by a quorum (Bed, Sanhedrin). Laws established in the Shas were accepted as binding by virtue of public acceptance. Anything later or not in these forums is not binding (and not unlike Khazhu who wrote that the Sanhedrin and the Talmudic sages gave power to the sages of future generations according to their opinion).
B. Definitely a consideration. In order to change a law that has become common in the public (like a matter of law), a reason is needed.

Unfortunately, I don't have time for that.